So the inquisition was purely rational, while the flower wars weren't?The fact that aztec gods dont exist. True, they believed in it, but other societies didnt really act in the name of god, they just covered through religion more real and rational concerns (look at crusades, or inquisition, for example).
The reason of flower wars was by far more "abstract religion" than the crusades.
Both were carried out in the name of gods (or a god) who may or may not exist. The inquisitions were also used to bring stability. The flower wars were also used to train the military and as a form of social mobility. Further, flower wars were 'voluntarily', while the inquisition wasn't.
Is 'trying to bring stability in a forceful way' (which obviously didn't work; see the Dutch Revolt) better than ('voluntarily') 'training the military' (worked) and 'a form of social mobility' (also worked)?